On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 11:27:10AM +1000, Terence Giufre-Sweetser wrote:
Now there's a good idea, and it works, I have several sites running a
port 25 trap to stop smtp abuse.
To stop port 25 abuse at some schools, the firewall grabs all outgoing
port 25 connections from !the mail server,
Jim Hickstein wrote:
My customers who reach me (a mail service) from Earthlink dialups
are affected by this. Apparently it's still happening. I run a
listener on another host and port, known only to this (so far)
small subset of people, to be able to serve them. In general, we
advise
Jim Hickstein wrote:
One clarification: Can these users relay through that host, using
SMTP AUTH, from anywhere, or only from within your network? I
observe, for instance, that the instructions for Outlook 2000
(Windows) does not have them check my [outgoing SMTP] server
requires
On Fri, 10 May 2002, David Charlap wrote:
Jim Hickstein wrote:
My customers who reach me (a mail service) from Earthlink dialups
are affected by this. Apparently it's still happening. I run a
listener on another host and port, known only to this (so far)
small subset of people,
2002-04-05 | 116
2002-04-04 | 125
2002-04-03 |91
2002-04-02 |88
2002-04-01 |97
(33 rows)
go ahead and Just Hit Delete if you want.
if this idiot idea (the `you can delete it' one) continues on, there's
going to be a market for ultra long life, MILSPEC, DEL KEYS.
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 11:27:10AM +1000, Terence Giufre-Sweetser wrote:
Now there's a good idea, and it works, I have several sites running a
port 25 trap to stop smtp abuse.
To stop port 25 abuse at some schools, the firewall grabs all outgoing
port 25 connections from !the mail
--On Thursday, May 9, 2002 8:26 PM -0600 Joel Baker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Earthlink was doing this for basically all of their consumer-grade
(dialup, most of the ADSL, etc) customers in 1999 (well, almost certainly
earlier than that, but I can only personally speak to it being in place
For more on EarthLink's Port 25 policy see:
http://help.earthlink.net/port25/
Best regards,
Al Rowland
-Original Message-
From: Joel Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 7:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: anybody else been spammed by no-ip.com yet
--On Thursday, May 9, 2002 8:37 PM -0700 Rowland, Alan D
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For more on EarthLink's Port 25 policy see:
http://help.earthlink.net/port25/
That's very helpful! Thank you!
One clarification: Can these users relay through that host, using SMTP
AUTH, from anywhere, or
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 06:01:49PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[snip]
Passing laws and putting on filters don't work. Depending on each mail
server admin to do the right thing doesn't work. We need to find
something else that will.
I'm beginning to think that fighting the spam itself is
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Scott Francis wrote:
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 06:01:49PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[snip]
Passing laws and putting on filters don't work. Depending on each mail
server admin to do the right thing doesn't work. We need to find
something else that will.
I'm
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 07:31:47PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
Actually, my analysis of spam seems to indicate authentication of remote
SMTP servers through a process similar to joining this list would remove
99+% of SPAM. i.e. the first email from a particular remote server that
is
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
Actually, my analysis of spam seems to indicate authentication of remote
SMTP servers through a process similar to joining this list would remove
99+% of SPAM. i.e. the first email from a particular remote server that
is received, requires the
On Mon, 06 May 2002 19:31:47 EDT, Ralph Doncaster said:
99+% of SPAM. i.e. the first email from a particular remote server that
is received, requires the sender to take some action (respond with a
And the mailing list you just subscribed to clicks on the URL *how*?
Across the hall we got a
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Scott Francis wrote:
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 06:01:49PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[snip]
Passing laws and putting on filters don't work. Depending on each mail
server admin to do the right thing doesn't work. We need to find
something else that will.
I'm
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 01:13:34AM -0400, Mike Joseph wrote:
The major problem I see with this is the need to verify that the
spamvertised site actually requested or paid for the spam. After all,
what's to prevent me from spamming in the name of xyz.com just so I can
see them shutdown?
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
Anyone who thinks that government can pass a law and this will go away is
hopelessly naieve. The spammers will go overseas. Besides, if you look
The spammers already use non-US machines in various ways to disguise their
(still predominately)
: anybody else been spammed by no-ip.com yet?
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
We're trying to discourage bulk emailers, not individuals.
Then the way to do this is to make the cost of sending mass mail more
expensive than sending only a few here and there. In short, we
There will be a day when folks will need to pay to transit email
(Paul Vixie, 1998).
Still working on that better mouse trap?
well, other than that i wish i could charge _you_ for the spam i get
that's due to the several MAILTO:[EMAIL PROTECTED]'s on your www.dotcomeon.com
site, no. it's
In a message written on Sat, May 04, 2002 at 04:36:40PM -0400, Scott A Crosby wrote:
So far, other than Jared Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s calculation where
he neither confirmed nor disputed $.02/email, I've yet to see *one*
quantified per-message price bandied about..
It doesn't matter.
I
On Sun, 05 May 2002 18:15:15 EDT, Nathan J. Mehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
people that this had happened to? I'd file a class-action liability
suit against Microsoft for selling a defective product that lost my
clients thousands of dollars.
I suspect I'd have a good chance of winning, too.
In the immortal words of [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Sun, 05 May 2002 18:15:15 EDT, Nathan J. Mehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
people that this had happened to? I'd file a class-action liability
suit against Microsoft for selling a defective product that lost my
clients
I'm going to make a suggestion which I realize that today there isn't any
easy way to do this. However, I want to throw this out because I think if
we could figure out how to do it, I think the spam problem will go away.
Anytime anyone sends a mail to my server, I want to be paid 2 cents.
2
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
What I envision is some sort of micropayment protocol extension to SNMP.
-
Make that SMTP :) I guess I've been working on network monitoring too
much recently.
-
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
I'm going to make a suggestion which I realize that today there isn't any
easy way to do this. However, I want to throw this out because I think if
we could figure out how to do it, I think the spam problem will go away.
Anytime anyone
On Fri, 3 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you have data on approximate amount of this extra mail bandwidth due to
spam per user? Actually lets be more exact, can some of you with 10,000
real user mail accounts reply how much traffic your mail server is using
and if you have spam
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It does not cost very little to recieve spam.
It costs the end-user very little to recieve spam.
I'll echo Paul's comments about the cost of my time. In my case, a
half hour a day seems about right (compared to Paul's hour a day). I
suspect you may have a very
At the moment I'm actually interested in statistics on size of spam
messages as compared to average size of mail message to try to caclulate
amount of mail bandwdith they really waste...
My own calculations show around 27% spam email and I'v seen statistics
from 20-30% from others (someone
At 08:21 PM 03-05-02 -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
456 05/03 Big Brother Protect your family on the InternetHTML BOD
457 05/03 Big Brother Protect your family on the InternetHTML BOD
458 05/03 Big Brother Protect your family on the InternetHTML BOD
459 05/03 Big Brother
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 11:57:04AM -0700, Gary E. Miller wrote:
Yo Scott!
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Scott A Crosby wrote:
I'd like the costs quantified.. Servers and disks are expensive, but if
they handle a ten million messages during their lifetime, the amortized
cost PER MESSAGE is
trollishly
What do you guess for the amortized cost/spam?
/trollishly
a cost that you are forced to pay in order to enrich somebody else is
theft, no matter how microscopic the payment might be. we all know what
(they) are, now we're just arguing about the price.
I do find it amusing
I've been roasted privately and called naive in thinking that pay-per-mail
is a valid solution.
Let me first say that the $0.02 I pulled out of the air was derived
simply by taking the $80/hr I bill to clients and dividing that by 3600
(number of seconds in an hour) thus $0.022. I'd say that
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Eric A. Hall wrote:
Forrest W. Christian wrote:
Anyone who thinks that government can pass a law and this will go away
is hopelessly naieve.
Uh, thanks. The government has all kinds of property protection laws. My
mail spool is my property. Do
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Eric A. Hall wrote:
Uh, thanks. The government has all kinds of property protection laws. My
mail spool is my property. Do the math.
Your car is your private property as well, but if you park it in a public
place, with the engine running, and offer every passerby the
Forrest W. Christian wrote:
Grandma would get 2c for each mail she received. Grandma would pay 2c
for each email she sent. Where does that cause the problems you are
talking about?
I send a lot more mail than grandma does.
--
Eric A. Hall
I want to clarify this a bit, before I get flamed (not that I'm not going
to anyways).
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
The people in the middle would get *nothing* beyond what they are getting
today.
Grandma would get 2c for each mail she received. Grandma would pay 2c for
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
We're trying to discourage bulk emailers, not individuals.
Then the way to do this is to make the cost of sending mass mail more
expensive than sending only a few here and there. In short, we need a way to
prevent the use of the $19.95
facetious
Hey! Where's my reply? I'm in the hole $.04 on this thread now!
Right! No more mail to you until you send me two messages!
/facetious
Then we all move to some other medium that doesn't cost money -- and then
the spammers follow us there too.
Eric A. Hall wrote:
Forrest W.
Theft/Taxes nearly the same . ;-) JimL
Really? What's the difference?
I was giving the thief the benefit of doubt ;-) . JimL
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm
See the part on public goods problem and Pareto optimality :)
--vadim
On Sat, 4 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about something along the lines of dial accounts having their outgoing
SMTP connections rate limited to, oh, let's say 100 per day, and limiting the
maximum number of recipients on any given email to some low number, say 5?
A customer reaches
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Eric A. Hall wrote:
Grandma would get 2c for each mail she received. Grandma would pay 2c
for each email she sent. Where does that cause the problems you are
talking about?
I send a lot more mail than grandma does.
Yes, but even if you send one a day and she never
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
On Sat, 4 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about something along the lines of dial accounts having their outgoing
SMTP connections rate limited to, oh, let's say 100 per day, and limiting the
maximum number of recipients on any given
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
Passing laws and putting on filters don't work. Depending on each mail
server admin to do the right thing doesn't work. We need to find
something else that will.
Define doesn't work?
Yes there is still spam - but the laws are in all cases
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 07:22:35PM -0500, Eric A. Hall wrote:
Ask people in those states which have anti-spam laws how many fewer
spam messages they receive than before.
Although responding to this message puts me back to -$.04, I will point
out that the junk fax law worked pretty
ben hubbard wrote:
why not instead lobby for a federal law, and enforcement of that
law, along with a centralized and well admin'd blacklist (who's
operations would be funded in part by proceeds from enforcement of
antispam laws).
Actually, a well-written law wouldn't need funding. MAPS
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
On Sat, 4 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about something along the lines of dial accounts having their outgoing
SMTP connections rate limited to, oh, let's say 100 per day, and limiting the
maximum number of recipients on any
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Gregory Hicks wrote:
money. Today with flat rate access and many people not paying on a per
packet basis it seems to me that the responsibility lies with the end
user to filter properly and or dress that delete key. I always shut
[...snip...]
The problem with
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Scott Granados wrote:
Well the costs you mentioned with aol seem high
Not when you consider how much time and money AOL has sunk into the
development of their mail system. They are the only company that has to
scale their operations to the size to which they scale, and
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Eric A. Hall wrote:
Anyone who thinks that government can pass a law and this will go away
is hopelessly naieve.
Uh, thanks. The government has all kinds of property protection laws. My
mail spool is my property. Do the math.
Indeed, the courts have already ruled
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Faxes are a little bit easier to trace than email.
Sometimes. If the faxer is identifying s/h/itself properly.
--
Steve Sobol, CTO (Server Guru, Network Janitor and Head Geek)
JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH 888.480.4NET
as a coauthor of rfc2136, my curiousity is always
piqued when spammers use the technology. can i get
private forwards of other similar messages? (see
below.)
(and yes, i'll also be in touch with level3, who
serves 166.90.15.236, from whence this message came.)
(time was, anyone who could use
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:46:45AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
(time was, anyone who could use postfix and php would
also know better than to spam, or at least, to spam *me*.
grump grumble.)
If you feel like you don't have enough spam, I'd be happy to let you have
some of mine. :)
--
Not me, but I am getting an awful lot of emails from this one person, to
my nanog address lately:
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 21586 invoked from network); 3 May 2002 03:09:28 -
Received: from unknown (HELO sohu.com) (203.240.184.78)
by
no spam. But I just took apart an IRC controlled botnet
that used their service.
(The trojan was a basic 'floodnet' binary and was distributed
via email... )
--
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Join http://www.DShield.org
Distributed Intrusion Detection
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Paul Vixie
Sent: May 3, 2002 11:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: anybody else been spammed by no-ip.com yet?
as a coauthor of rfc2136, my curiousity is always
piqued when spammers use
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Paul Vixie
Sent: May 3, 2002 5:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: anybody else been spammed by no-ip.com yet?
I hate to sound like the big idiot here, but what exactly
in the email
At 05:25 PM 5/3/2002 +0100, you wrote:
I got some of these a few weeks ago. I believe these test messages are sent
to find the non-deliverables in their mailing list. Right after I got these
test messages, they started sending quite a bit of spam. I filtered
sohu.com and it went away.
Not
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
I hate to sound like the big idiot here, but what exactly in the email
you received indicates no-ip.com spammed? It looks to me like you just
have some secret admirer who thought you wanted a no-ip.com account,
and no-ip.com emailed you to confirm
At 02:59 PM 5/3/2002 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
At 05:25 PM 5/3/2002 +0100, you wrote:
I got some of these a few weeks ago. I believe these test messages are
sent to find the non-deliverables in their mailing list. Right after I got
these test messages, they started sending quite a bit of
... I'm not sure entirely what the big deal with spam is. Honestly sure
I get it like everyone else, in some of my accounts more than others
... I have a delete key ...
in the time between when you sent the above, and when i read it, the
following messages were added to my mailbox:
1+
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 15:27:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Granados [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I realize this statement I'm about to make is going to open a huge...
can o worms but ... and hoefully everyone knows I mean this in the most
friendly responsible way ever but I'm not sure entirely what
Picture it as a fellow stopping by every night and filling your home
mailbox with horse manure...I'm sure you'll get a feeling for how most of
us regard it.
A) it wastes bandwidth
B) It wastes our time
C) It's the litter of an otherwise clean Internet.
D) It's a method of placing the costs
: anybody else been spammed by no-ip.com yet?
I realize this statement I'm about to make is going to open a huge...
can o worms but ... and hoefully everyone knows I mean this in the most
friendly responsible way ever but I'm not sure entirely what the big
deal with spam is. Honestly sure
Well the costs you mentioned with aol seem high but I suppose are
possible. Being a parent however and having three children who do use
the net extensively I see your point about the content they receive but
of course the ultimate responsibility for what they are exposed to on
the net lies
uWell I tend to always error on the side of free expression verses
making something illegal and I definitely disagree with the statement
that its a clean internet otherwise but just like non electronic space
there are many differing standards and shades of things something I
actually think
I do agree here that using fake addressing and so on is really bad on
many levels. I know on one of the networks I was involved in recently
we had a customer who was a spammer and I pulled his services very
quickly, some might even say to quickly. I also realize that even
though I
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 05:08:44PM -0400, Vivien M. wrote:
[snip]
I hate to sound like the big idiot here, but what exactly in the email
you received indicates no-ip.com spammed? It looks to me like you just
have some secret admirer who thought you wanted a no-ip.com account,
and
... not only does it cost usually very little to receive these messages ...
even if i granted to a third party the right to determine the value of my
time, which i don't, the fact is that an hour or more of my time per day is
too high a price to pay to receive these messages, by _any_
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
If I haven't made my point, this is it... NO ONE. NO BODY!
would be so lame or STUPID as to do something so assinine without
checking with me first. Anyone who did so was NOT someone with my
best interest in mind and certainly not a
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 09:41:36PM -0400, PS wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
If I haven't made my point, this is it... NO ONE. NO BODY!
would be so lame or STUPID as to do something so assinine without
checking with me first. Anyone who did so was NOT
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:13:52PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Picture it as a fellow stopping by every night and filling your home
mailbox with horse manure...I'm sure you'll get a feeling for how most of
us regard it.
A) it wastes bandwidth
B) It wastes our time
C) It's the
I'm curious on this extra traffic data, since I'm somewhat involved with
antispam website, it'd be interesting to get the statistics and post it to
explain others how bad spam is for internet not only in annoyance but in
actual extra costs and wasted traffic.
Do you have data on approximate
72 matches
Mail list logo
